Trump has used the same standards of incompetence and character flaws to make his Supreme Court appointments as he has to build his cabinet. So we have this wonderful gift, from the past two Republican Presidents of the United States, a Supreme Court made up of individuals who not only did not possess the credentials in the federal judiciary or legal field to advance to a job with the kind of Constitutional responsibility as the Supreme Court, but who seem almost deliberately inept and incompetent, as if they think their job is to sabotage the court, upset the carefully crafted balance of power in the Constitution and throw the government into confusion, by undermining it.
America's founding fathers operated under the impression, which has, in modern times become an illusion, that the individuals who would be considered for appointment to these kinds of public office would come from among those who had studied the law and the constitution, and had a respect for its principles and for the limits and balances that it placed on government power and its use. They clearly did not expect its members to be driven by partisan politics or personal ambition, but by a desire to serve the public, defending the most vulnerable and enforcing the guarantee of equal individual rights for every single person within the boundaries of the United States of America.
Considering those ideals against the backdrop of decisions made by this Roberts court makes them look like some kind of sick joke.
But, what do we expect?
We've elected, twice now, a President who is a narcissist and a misogynist, a womanizing adulterer who has built his reputation on the worldliness of his lack of morality, pathological lying and dishonesty, and on making a mockery of a legal system whose authority he flaunts and a nation whose patriotism he mocks. So it should come as no surprise that, in making appointments to the court, integrity, honesty and good character wouldn't be things he took into consideration, nor would the legal competency and accomplishments of his justice appointments.
We already had Clarence Thomas, whose moral character was called into question by multiple women who had worked under his supervision, most notably Anita Hill. In spite of the fact that Hill's allegations of sexual harassment were proven by evidence presented, the Republicans went ahead and put him on the court anyway. Thomas has since proven he lacks both the common sense and the knowledge of Constitutional law to serve on the court, and his willingness to take bribes which affect decisions he makes has become an embarassment to a branch of government that once valued the fact its ethics were self-regulated.
Samuel Alito, too, has proven to lack the kind of personal honesty and integrity that are necessary to preserve the court's reputation. The power he has held as a justice has been too much for his weak integrity and lack of character to hold out against the temptation to use his power for personal benefit. And we haven't even gotten to the Trump appointees yet.
Brett Cavanaugh is another immoral embarassment. There was a time in this country when the perpetually drunken frat boy at the weekly parties, the guy who could never remember how he wound up in his bed, or someone else's, the morning after, and whose drunken behavior included assaulting women until he found one who would sleep with him, wouldn't be considered the "most likely to succeed" in his college class, much less the most likely to wind up as a Supreme Court Justice. But Cavanaugh has become the poster child for drunken frat boys, and the success they can now achieve in politics. Apparently, living in a drunken stupor and the violence against women it produces is now a qualification for serving in the federal judiciary or in the cabinet.
Neil Gorsuch also has a record of ethics violations in fiancial dealings to his own personal benefit. They weren't big, splashy scandals like those involving Alito or Thomas, but they are situations that any judge desiring to uphold the law and preserve their reputation for honesty and integrity would have avoided, since there is the appearance that he accepted favors in exchange for legal rulings.
Then, if we're still talking ethics and honesty, and applying those characteristics to this court, there's the fact that all of Trump's appointees lied to Congress, by declaring their belief that the Roe v. Wade decision was "settled law," and that they were opposed to overturning it. Clearly, whether it is visible or not, this is a court that cannot be trusted, and can be bribed and bought.
And that is the historical record, and the reputation by which the Roberts court will always be known.
After 240 Years, We Need Ethics Rules For the Supreme Court
The authors of the Constitution did not put in a whole long list of ethics rules or practices of standard integrity into the text. They assumed, by their own observation, that while there would be differences of opinion, the men who would be qualified by experience and knowledge to serve as Supreme Court Justices, or Presidents for that matter, would be respected for their integrity, something that would help them rise to the places where their work would be appreciated, and valued by those who would either elect them or appoint them. They could not have imagined how selfish, greedy, bribed by money and the potential of the power it brings, some of the potential nominees would be, or that anyone like that would ever get on the court.
But here we are, with at least six of those now on the Supreme Court, having abandoned any sense of American patriotism or respect for Constitutional principles, some having taken bribes in the form of perks and money, others simply not having the ability to do the job because their outspoken ideology and partisan loyalty has become more influential in rendering their opinions than the objective lega, Constitutional standards we expect, and is more visible than their integrity.
There are six of them that need to be impeached and removed, all of those appointed by a Republican President, because their objectivity as a jurist has been wiped out by partisan loyalty and personal self-interest.
I doubt that we will ever have the opportunity, even if Democrats beat the odds and win control of Congress back after the midterms, if there is a free and fair election and their prospects wind up changing from what we see right now, to impeach six justices and get them off the court
We Blew the Chance we Had in 2020
Had the Democrats followed the lead of those within their ranks calling for the Congress to pack the Supreme Court in 2020, we would not be facing an existential threat to the existence of American democracy, at least, not from Donald Trump. That kind of risky political action requires boldness, not tradition and status quo political games. The GOP has shown no interest in including Democrats in any negotiations when it comes to the legislation they want to pass, or the actions they want to take, at any point when they've held the majority in both houses.
So why should we play the old status quo political games? Why not do things our way? Why can't our leaders get that?
Packing the Supreme Court, thereby neutralizing the Republican appointed incompetent conservatives, was within our reach. It would have required amending the Judiciary act in the House to add five [or however many we wanted to add] seats to the court. This would have been appropriate payback for the Republican stonewalling of Merrick Garland's appointment in 2012, and for lying like they did and rushing Coney-Barrett onto the court before the election in 2020. It would have given President Biden five appointments to the court.
It would have also required getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. Well, it's my opinion that the filibuster is as big an obstacle to democracy as Trump himself is. Let it go. Yes, that works both ways, and prevents the Democrats from stalling and obfuscating when they are in the minority. But isn't the preservation of our Constitutional democracy more important than standing on some stupid political tradition?
The Republicans could not have stopped that. And the benefits would have far outweighed the consequences of tit for tat down the road.
The newly packed court could have overturned Citizens United, allowing Congress to pass stringent campaign finance reform taking billionaire money out of elections. It would have restored Roe v. Wade. It would have overturned the Presidential immunity rulings and made the President accountable to obey the law or suffer the consequences. And they would have wiped out the delays and stalls in the federal courts where Trump was buying time to wait out the clock to avoid prosecution for his insurrection and stolen documents crimes, which would have rendered him ineligible to run and put him in prison.
That's now a consequence we have to live with, and it may well be exactly the reason why the party's job approval ratings aren't getting traction against the worst Presidency we have ever experienced in our history.
If We Won Back Control of Both Houses in the Midterms, What Can We Do With That?
Our old line, old school, traditional party leaders have already given up on getting control of both houses back in 2026. Yep, read 'em and weep, that is exactly what they are saying and it is why I am not sending money anywhere except to Leaders We Deserve and to Fight Oligarchy Tour. These are so obviously the most effective Democratic party opposition movements right now, and it's where the optimism is found. I'm also giving to Indivisible, and attending some of the rallies and marches, because that appears to be working.
So this discussion is moot unless Democrats decide they are going to genuinely oppose the existential threat to democracy posed by Trump, stop whining, and quit feathering their own nests and protecting the turf they have left, and make an effort to save the country.
Impeachment takes a two thirds vote of both houses, so that is out of the question. But a Democratic controlled Congress can stop the flow of incompetent and heavily partisan jurists to the federal benches, and hold the seats open for a porential Democrat in the White House in 2028. Perhaps the most important job they can do is to stonewall, and prevent the implementation of any further damage.
And I don't think the Supreme Court is imprevious to public pressure. I'm not opposed to directing some of Indivisible's marches and protests at the Supreme Court. There's a lot of room out there on that plaza on First Street SE.
And if we do manage to win the 2028 election, including control of both houses, in what will be the certain wake formed as a result of the disaster of having the single worst and most corrupt President in American history in office, we need to immediately take the steps necessary to stop that from ever happening again. We will not have the ability to overcome the conservative corrupt majority on the court any time soon, so packing the court will be the best alternative to making sure the justice branch of the government stays within the boundaries of its constitutional balance. Once that happens, we can find ways to legislate, and to get the court to rule, to prevent Republicans from taking advantage of our move to save the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment